He can't buy a big serve when in trouble and that piles on everything else, especially when trying to finish matches.

Click to expand...

Fed's serve always fluctuated throghout the year, you just didn't notice that much it because he wasn't so dependant on it as he is today. Nowadays when Fed's serve goes more and more often his game goes with it.

Fed's serve always fluctuated throghout the year, you just didn't notice that much it because he wasn't so dependant on it as he is today. Nowadays when Fed's serve goes more and more often his game goes with it.

I think it is the other way - His game derives confidence by setting up clean and easy points on his serve. If he has to win a lot of rallies on his serve, his rhythm seems to be disrupted.

Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, on the return and from the baseline peak Fed won the majority of the rallies against anyone but Nadal (and old Agassi at times).

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

He got more returns into play(especially in slams) so his opponent felt more pressure and created more BP opportunities(he was always a lousy BP converter though).

His serve was a weapon on its best day and complemented Fed's overall game nicely but it wasn't crucial to Fed's performance, his game wasn't constructed around serve.

I agree with you guys. It's not so much the big points, but for whole matches. 2009 AO Final was a good example of his serve, on fire throughout the tournament, suddenly deserting him. In WTF, the serve was awsome, around 70% in first two matches and then downhill to under 50% in the final. He lucked out, gutted it out, against Tsonga.

The thing about Roger now is that he keeps hanging in there and working through weaknesses and mistakes of the past. One thing I think we saw in the WTF: after the first two matches (Tsonga and Nadal), where he played very well, he started taking pace off the ball if his timing wasn't with him from the start of the match.

It looked to me that in the Ferrer and Tsonga matches we could have seen an appearance from Roger Shankalot. But realizing that he didn't have his best timing on the day, he shifted down a gear. I think he could have lost either match as a result, but it shows a definite strategic/mental adjustment on his part to dial it down, hang in there and maybe eek out a win, rather than keep swinging and go down shanking, as we've seen in many matches over the past year.

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

Click to expand...

It has more to do with other players improving than Federer's decline. Now players can put him in defensive position without giving up that advantage during a rally. The key to Federer today is he has to be more aggressive than he used to, in return, he will be less consistent. Federer has to accept this trade off, and be more aggressive than he used to.

We'll have to agree to disagree, on the return and from the baseline peak Fed won the majority of the rallies against anyone but Nadal (and old Agassi at times).

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

He got more returns into play(especially in slams) so his opponent felt more pressure and created more BP opportunities(he was always a lousy BP converter though).

His serve was a weapon on its best day and complemented Fed's overall game nicely but it wasn't crucial to Fed's performance, his game wasn't constructed around serve.

Click to expand...

Sure... he has declined in more ways than one. But the single biggest thing in pressure situations is the serve and everything follows from that. Even today, in the second set, he needed a few boomers and didn't pull it off. He was able to do that while serving for the match in the third.

I agree with you guys. It's not so much the big points, but for whole matches. 2009 AO Final was a good example of his serve, on fire throughout the tournament, suddenly deserting him. In WTF, the serve was awsome, around 70% in first two matches and then downhill to under 50% in the final. He lucked out, gutted it out, against Tsonga.

The thing about Roger now is that he keeps hanging in there and working through weaknesses and mistakes of the past. One thing I think we saw in the WTF: after the first two matches (Tsonga and Nadal), where he played very well, he started taking pace off the ball if his timing wasn't with him from the start of the match.

It looked to me that in the Ferrer and Tsonga matches we could have seen an appearance from Roger Shankalot. But realizing that he didn't have his best timing on the day, he shifted down a gear. I think he could have lost either match as a result, but it shows a definite strategic/mental adjustment on his part to dial it down, hang in there and maybe eek out a win, rather than keep swinging and go down shanking, as we've seen in many matches over the past year.

Click to expand...

Not really. His serve was only good against DP and Roddick. Overall, he hit 21 DFs during the tournament. That's probably among his worse tournaments as far as serving goes.

It has more to do with other players improving than Federer's decline. Now players can put him in defensive position without giving up that advantage during a rally. The key to Federer today is he has to be more aggressive than he used to, in return, he will be less consistent. Federer has to accept this trade off, and be more aggressive than he used to.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't buy that for a second, the only player who improved this year was Novak, Nadal was the same or worse than last year.

Players could always put Fed in a defensive position but the difference is before his transition from defense to offense was so good that it made every big hitter out there nervous, today he's more prone to losing to big hitters while that style of play was the one that suited him the most in his best years.

Some people will agree with you for sure but personally I never bought the evolution of the game theory, just don't believe in it.

the only player who improved this year was Novak, Nadal was the same or worse than last year.

Players could always put Fed in a defensive position but the difference is before his transition from defense to offense was so good that it made every big hitter out there nervous, today he's more prone to losing to big hitters while that style of play was the one that suited him the most in his best years.

Some people will agree with you for sure but personally I never bought the evolution of the game theory, just don't believe in it.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion, Tsonga, Berdych, Solderling hadn't improved in the last two years?

The big hitters are much more consistent in a match than they used to. Just look at Tsonga, Berdych, Solderling. They are much more consistent in a match than they used to. They are still inconsistent from match to match, which is why they haven't made bigger breakthrough yet. Watch their matches against Federer in the last two years vs a few years ago. They used to go for too much against Federer, trying to hit perfect shots, thus making tons of errors. They don't do that much anymore, rather just keep pressure on Federer once put him in defensive position, which is why it makes life much more difficult for Federer. Federer hasn't completely adjusted to being more aggressive against these types of players consistently. He was very aggressive against Nadal because he knows he has to. He is a little bit too passive against other palyers.

So in your opinion, Tsonga, Berdych, Solderling hadn't improved in the last two years?

The big hitters are much more consistent in a match than they used to. Just look at Tsonga, Berdych, Solderling. They are much more consistent in a match than they used to. They are still inconsistent from match to match, which is why they haven't made bigger breakthrough yet. Watch their matches against Federer in the last two years vs a few years ago. They used to go for too much against Federer, trying to hit perfect shots, thus making tons of errors. They don't do that much anymore, rather just keep pressure on Federer once put him in defensive position, which is why it makes life much more difficult for Federer. Federer hasn't completely adjusted to being more aggressive against these types of players consistently. He was very aggressive against Nadal because he knows he has to. He is a little bit too passive against other palyers.

Click to expand...

The did that, since they had to as Federer's movement and defense were better. It's pretty clear he is not as fast consistently as he used to be before.

In a couple of year when Federer's out of the top 10, according to tennis guy it won't be because Federer's game has declined but because the field has become stronger.

Click to expand...

It's two way street. I haven't seen Federer's so called sharp decline as you saw the last two years. As he is getting older, he is certainly is going to be slower, but he can make it up with other aspects of his games. He is too passive for long stretches in a match against big hitters, who used to make tons of errors against him, but don't anymore. So he has to be more aggressive than he used to.

The truth is that he's still Top 3. He does need a little bit more luck and preparation now, but he can find himself in a major final and no one would be surprised. In fact, outside of the Nadal and Djokovic, who can you decidedly pick over Roger?

If someone is truly declined, no one will have anything to say about them. Look at Roger's generation. No one is creating threads about Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, or ferrero.

I think its mental for him. He has to play harder against a field that has gotten a lot closer while he has lost half a step. Shots that used to be winners are coming back and offensive shots that he used to hit from a defensive position are few and far between.

He can still hit all the shots but he is under way more pressure because there aren't many easy matches these days. He was pretty lazy out there and very passive today. Tsonga didn't really play that well considering how Rodger fed him medium paced sitters that had no depth. It was a painful match to watch and I was pulling for Fed.

The truth is that he's still Top 3. He does need a little bit more luck and preparation now, but he can find himself in a major final and no one would be surprised. In fact, outside of the Nadal and Djokovic, who can you decidedly pick over Roger?

If someone is truly declined, no one will have anything to say about them. Look at Roger's generation. No one is creating threads about Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Blake, or ferrero.

Click to expand...

He has slowed down though but even playing at 1/2 of the level he used to he is still talented and skillful enough to overcome most opponents. What haters are trying to do is denigrate and lessen Roger's achievements by saying that he hasn't declined at all therefore reinforcing their flawed hypothesis that Roger accumulated all those wins because he played in a "weak era" and is less successful now because he has "better" players to challenge him.

Exactly.
He had 2 big matches he very well could have won i.e the RG final vs. Rafa where he , if you recall, was cruising and had set point and hit a drop shot that missed by 1/2 an inch. Then he had MP vs Nole and had he won that one well i think he may well haev won the Open.
Not too mention the very narrow loss to Jo at Wimby. Had he taken that match well i think he would have taken the title there.

The only real decline i can see is in the judgement of his season by people who dont know the game of tennis very well.

All that matters is how he is doing with respect to the competition today. Point me to any other player from Rogers generation who is doing better.

Click to expand...

Why are you trying to judge Federer's decline or lack thereof vis-a-vis other players of his generation. Federer HAS visibly declined since 2006 but he is STILL good/skilled/talented enough enough to compete with the younger generation. The same cannot be said of his peers because Federer is an anomaly.

It's a two way street. Federer HAS declined (it's obvious if you watch videos of his matches during his prime) but others have improved as well because of the bar Federer set during his prime. Both aspects aren't mutually exclusive.

Fully agree with you. Murray probably is better than Laver, but not than Federer at his best.

Click to expand...

Murray>Laver??? I don't care how much "evolution" is argued...one guy won 2 CYGS's and the other hasn't won a SET in major finals. Tennis is and has always been about showing up in big moments. One did, the other hasn't.

Murray>Laver??? I don't care how much "evolution" is argued...one guy won 2 CYGS's and the other hasn't won a SET in major finals. Tennis is and has always been about showing up in big moments. One did, the other hasn't.

Click to expand...

We are talking evolution of the game right? Murray will be faster, stronger, quicker, leaner then Laver. Give Laver a 95 inch hybrid shizzle whizzle racquet any he will get destroyed by Murray any day of the week. You should control for that however. The no. 10 of year 2100 will be waaaay stronger, fitter, leaner, quicker than Federer ever was and would destroy him. Does that make him a better player? No. Records and achievements count, not the absolute level of play really.

We are talking evolution of the game right? Murray will be faster, stronger, quicker, leaner then Laver. Give Laver a 95 inch hybrid shizzle whizzle racquet any he will get destroyed by Murray any day of the week. You should control for that however. The no. 10 of year 2100 will be waaaay stronger, fitter, leaner, quicker than Federer ever was and would destroy him. Does that make him a better player? No. Records and achievements count, not the absolute level of play really.

Click to expand...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this "evolution" issue bcoz we have no Marty McFly/Back to the Future Delorean to transport Muzza to the 60's nor Laver to the new millenium. Suffice to say, were Laver born in the postwar era, scientific studies have shown he would be 2-4 cm taller (likewise Murray would be that much shorter). As to strength, have you ever seen pictures of Laver and his "lobster-like" appendage hanging from his left shoulder? The guy had blacksmith forearms! Fitness? Again, an evolutionary argument. Give Laver the earnings potential Murray enjoys and I'm sure a dietary/exercise team would have surrounded him? Equipment? Laver could do things with an 80-inch wood frame Murray can't even dream of?

Want me to go on? Laver>>>>>>>>Murray in a laugher, probably with a bagel and a breadstick!

ATP get into bed with this snobby upper class brand of champagne days before the WTF tournament starts and you presume you'd see an F1 champers remake but suddenly become all conservative with the champers by just 'handing' it to them?!!!

However, I (or would like to believe) the only reason why they didn't do that in London was because of all the confetti being thrown after. Front pages of Federer soaking wet and confetti stuck all over his GOAT face would not go down well with photographers.